ISL Tender Failure: Uncertainty Grips Indian Football Yet Again

Uncertainty has gripped Indian football yet again, as the Indian Super League (ISL) commercial rights tender ended without a single bidder.

The extended bid submission deadline concluded on November 7. Shortly thereafter, AIFF issued a statement that, following deliberations, former Supreme Court Judge Justice L Nageswara Rao, who heads the three-member Bid Evaluation Committee of the AIFF, will submit his report to the Supreme Court.

Background

Confusion hung in the air after AIFF’s commercial partner, Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), expressed its inability to proceed with the forthcoming season of the ISL. Discussions on renewing the 15-year Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between the two, set to expire in December 2025, stalled after a Supreme Court directive prevented any renewal pending its verdict on the AIFF Constitution.

The Court then stepped in, giving weight to the timely commencement of the football calendar and the maintenance of competitive continuity for the 2025-2026 season. It accepted the joint proposal submitted by both parties, which envisaged the commencement of the new league season by December 2025.

Subsequently, the Court approved the draft Constitution on September 19, which the AIFF later adopted in its entirety, excluding two contentious clauses pending directions from the Court. The Court ruled on these clauses on October 15 as follows:

• Article 23.3 of the draft Constitution, which required the Supreme Court’s nod for any amendments to the AIFF Constitution, need not be adopted. However, it clarified that once the approved draft Constitution is adopted, the AIFF will be governed by the applicable laws.
• Articles 25.3(c) and 25.3(d), which include provisions against concurrent membership, must be adopted within three weeks, but will come into effect after the term of the present executive expires in September 2026 (less than a year from now). This relaxation aimed to minimise disruption to the already delayed sporting events, as immediate implementation would have required a majority of office bearers to resign.

These clarifications did not end AIFF’s troubles, as the bidding process drew no takers. Concerns raised by interested bidders during the pre-bidding meeting included those regarding the amended Constitution. For instance, the implementation of the promotion and relegation principles was a point of contention.

Moreover, questions arose about the extent of the commercial partner’s influence in the league’s governing council. The Constitution mandates AIFF to have the right, discretion, and authority over all decision-making of any league or competition, with the governing council having one representative from the commercial partner. Against this backdrop, the central question was how a commercial partner could be expected to pay ₹37.5 crore a year to the AIFF when its role in decision-making would be negligible.

Separate Plea Before SC Expected

It is reported that ISL players and clubs will approach the Apex Court seeking a way forward. The coming weeks will be crucial in determining how the country’s top-tier football league will overcome yet another bout of administrative uncertainty.